Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Strangelove wrote:your precious NAS??

You know you're losing the argu... sorry, therapy session, when sulky little put-downs like this start flying about...

OK, let's suppose for the sake of argument that the NAS is an atheist fifth column / conspiracy / Illuminati mouthpiece / whatever (although, just perhaps, a much simpler explanation is that people who are good at figuring out how the Universe really works -- which the successful scientists are -- tend to not need any sort of God eventually, but I digress).

But how do you explain the prison population then? I've heard of the US referred to as the New Rome, but I didn't realize they were also selectively persecuting Christians.

Back on topic: my bet is that they screwed up their distance measurement -- they only need to be off by a few centimeters... if anything, this story illustrates the superiority of the scientific approach.

Sick Bunny wrote:

Strangelove wrote:your precious NAS??

You know you're losing the argu... sorry, therapy session, when sulky little put-downs like this start flying about...

You know you are not responding well to therapy when you consider the above a "sulky little put-down".

You know you are losing any imagined argument when all you do is construct strawmen.

33% of US scientists are atheists compared to 93% of your precious NAS.

Strangelove wrote:

Sick Bunny wrote:

Strangelove wrote:your precious NAS??

You know you're losing the argu... sorry, therapy session, when sulky little put-downs like this start flying about...

You know you are not responding well to therapy when you consider the above a "sulky little put-down".

You know you are losing any imagined argument when all you do is construct strawmen.

33% of US scientists are atheists compared to 93% of your precious NAS.

And 1% of the prison population?

I guess if you're planning a career in crime, it's nice to have a forgiving deity to have your back.

Strangelove wrote:33% of US scientists are atheists compared to 93% of your precious NAS.

So the point you keep hammering home is that atheism is far more prevalent among the elite scientists, compared to the rank-and-file.

Or to put it plainly, the top scientists are overwhelmingly atheist, while the less successful ones tend to be more religious.

Okay...

By the way, got a source for that 33% figure? It sounds contrived.

(I notice you're carefully dodging the subject of the prison population...)

Sick Bunny wrote: So the point you keep hammering home is that atheism is far more prevalent among the elite scientists, compared to the rank-and-file.

Or to put it plainly, the top scientists are overwhelmingly atheist, while the less successful ones tend to be more religious.

No, I keep hammering home the point those 2,100 members of the NAS are not necesarilly "elite scientists".

Rather members of a club of scientists in which belief in God is frowned upon.

Sick Bunny wrote: By the way, got a source for that 33% figure? It sounds contrived.

Well that was off the top of my head, going by articles I've read over the years, but I did a quick research just for you:

Pew Research Center results....





Note, broken down further, just 17 percent of American scientists lable themselves atheist.

Compared that to your 93% of the 2100 scientists at NAS and try to accept the possibility politics are at play.

And remember 2100 is a very small sampling of the total 22 MILLION American scientists.

Speaking of politics in play and those Pew Research Center results, here's wot the good folks at PRC had to say.

(where I got the above pie-charts from):

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethi ... elief.aspx

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National Institutes of Health, a number of scientists and pundits publicly questioned whether the nominee's devout religious faith should disqualify him from the position. In particular, some worried that an outspoken evangelical Christian who believes in miracles might not be the right person to fill what many consider to be the nation's most visible job in science. Collins was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Aug. 7, 2009, but the controversy over his nomination reflects a broader debate within the scientific community.

Yep, politics.

It is impossible to scientifically prove/disprove God exists, so why should it matter wot one believes on the issue?

Like I keep saying, one's personal beliefs have nothing to do with science.

Doesn't matter if we're talking belief in God, belief in the Big Bang, or belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In a perfect world the very idea of a 'scientific consensus of the scientific community' would invoke belly laughter from scientists and non-scientists alike. Ideally Science is all about the facts and ONLY about the facts.

Sick Bunny wrote: (I notice you're carefully dodging the subject of the prison population...)

Bah, prison is a club where claiming to "find religion" helps one win favour with parole board hearings & wotnot.

So in conclusion: Two entirely different kinds of club, each revealing aspects of human nature.